Community Projection Project for BtBS
by oldjacket on Jan 18, 2009 10:06 AM PST
93 comments
I've volunteered to help in a systematic projection of the Giants for Beyond the Boxscore. and I need your help. There are two things we're looking to project: performance and playing time. I've used the CHONES and my own brain to offer you a starting point on the hitters, and then I flat out stole Xanthan's pitching projections for a starting point on those.
Now I need you to rip them apart. Especially the playing time projections, as the estimates of knowledgeable fans are likely to be way better than some dumb ol' algorithm. I will revisit this at least one more time before the season to adjust the estimates based on injuries and (God help us) Spring Training performance.
If you disagree with these projections even a little bit, here's what to do:
1) If it's related to fielding, baserunning, hitting or pitching feel free to comment below.
2) If it's just about hitting, you can go to this application that I stole from The Other Fifteen and make your own projection which I will use to create a mean community projection for each hitter.
General Guidelines-
- for playing time I used a hard cap of 695 at bats for each position. It's fine to go over or under that number, but the end result should be in the neighborhood 695 at bats per position.
- Not too many players add more than 1 win with baserunning over the season. Not too many cost their team more than a half.
- -2 wins to +2 wins is a reasonable range for defense.
- For relievers, leverage is a measure of how crucial a game situation is. A closer will generally end up with the highest leverage score in the bullpen, followed by the set-up guys.
Here are the initial projections:
Hitters
Pitchers
Finally here's the link to worksheet that this is all based off of.
Thanks for your help.
This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.
5 recs |
93 comments
Email
Print
Comments
77 win team...
that sounds about right to me.
I think almost all of the offensive projections are more or less on spot, but I think the pitching ones are a little pessimistic on Matt Cain’s performance and Lincecum’s innings will likely be higher.
by NeifiChicken on Jan 18, 2009 12:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
it’s more like a 76-86 win team
I'm spent, just can't rosterbate anymore.
by oldjacket on Jan 18, 2009 12:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
how are your projections s variable? It looks like 77 to me
by NeifiChicken on Jan 18, 2009 1:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the line Win Talent on the spreadsheet marks what the mean # of wins should be. It should read 81.76. That’s the middle of 76 to 86 distribution.
I'm spent, just can't rosterbate anymore.
by oldjacket on Jan 18, 2009 1:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
perhaps my memory is just rust, but isn’t a team of replacement players worth 40 wins? Or is it 45? If it’s 40, I just used your WAR calculations to add 37-38 wins to that 40 level
by NeifiChicken on Jan 18, 2009 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oops. I meant to be using 43, but I was using closer to 50. Good catch.
This is why it’s good to make this a community projection.
I'm spent, just can't rosterbate anymore.
by oldjacket on Jan 18, 2009 1:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
not for the NL
I'm spent, just can't rosterbate anymore.
by oldjacket on Jan 18, 2009 1:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
different talent levels.
I can bring it to Kalkman if you really think it’s wrong, but’s his spreadsheet.
I'm spent, just can't rosterbate anymore.
by oldjacket on Jan 18, 2009 1:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Assuming The Talent Level In The NL Is Lower Does Not Mean Replacement Level Is Also Lower
Freely avilable talent should be the same for both leagues thus the talent level being lower in the NL should mean that this freely available talent should actually be able to win more games in the NL then they could win in the AL.
by giantsrainman on Jan 18, 2009 1:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No you’re right.
Should be 48 in the NL 43 in the AL.
The spreadsheet did originally have the Giants incorrectly labeled as an AL team. I’ve fixed that. I’ll wait until we get more alternate projections before we get too deep into the win projections.
I'm spent, just can't rosterbate anymore.
by oldjacket on Jan 18, 2009 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
48 is the easy answer (.300 winning percentage)
I, subjectively, think it might be a bit higher than that, but whatever.
The baseline for this spreadsheet isn’t 48, though, mostly due to accounting reasons and league differences. NL teams tend to have less talent these days, but since they compete against each other, they’ll still average near 81 wins. An NL teams with 30 WAR talent will win more games than an AL team with 30 WAR talent. So the baselines need to be changed, AL lower than NL. Then there’s DH stuff, bullpen leverage stuff, and optimism-bias stuff (which will be accounted for later.)
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jan 20, 2009 10:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Link for methodology (as opposed to projection) complaints
I'm spent, just can't rosterbate anymore.
by oldjacket on Jan 18, 2009 1:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What a concept.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jan 20, 2009 10:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Injury
If healthy, they should both pass 200 innings. But then again, there’s that 1 in 10 chance that they get injured a don’t reach 50 IP. Hence the (always) conservative IP projections.
..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.
by Cookyman on Jan 18, 2009 1:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The First Thing I Noticed Is That You Are Way Short On Total Position Player PAs.
Last Year The Giants had 6145 PAs of which 341 were by the pitchers resulting in 5844 by the position players. An average NL team last year had 6256 PAs with 351 by the pitchers resulting in 5905 by the position players. Your total of just 5560 by the position players is 284 less the the Giants got from them last year and 345 less the the average NL team got from their position players last year. Therefore you need to add in another 284 to 345 PAs for these players.
The next thing I notice is that to a lessor extent you have also underestimated the innings the Giants will pitch. Last year they pitched 1442 Innings and an average NL team pitched 1446 Innings. Your total of just 1410 is 32 less then the Giants pitched last year and 36 less then an average NL team pitched last year. Therefore you need to add in another 32 to 36 Innings.
by giantsrainman on Jan 18, 2009 1:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that’s about the number of PH Ab’s you could expect. I didn’t project PH Ab’s because, frankly, I have no idea how those will be distributed.
I'm spent, just can't rosterbate anymore.
by oldjacket on Jan 18, 2009 1:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll add about 50 innings in from Miller, and take some away from “Other” to bring it to about 1445
I'm spent, just can't rosterbate anymore.
by oldjacket on Jan 18, 2009 1:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My Mistake - Last Year The Giants Positon Players Had 5804 PAs (6145-341) Not 5844
There your numbers only 244 less (5704-5560) not 284 less.
by giantsrainman on Jan 18, 2009 2:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Some things I almost projected:
An Injury for Kevin Frandsen,
More innings for Justin Miller
Worse defense for Pablito at 3rd. (just went with his CHONE projection there).
Also, I tweaked the performance of “Other Reliever” down to replacement level from Xanthan’s projections. And I completely made up Kevin Frandsen’s defensive projections at 3B and 2B.
I'm spent, just can't rosterbate anymore.
by oldjacket on Jan 18, 2009 1:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Justin Time
I am glad to hear someone actually mention Justin Miller. I thought he was a very fine minor league signing, but he seldom is mentioned. This guy is actually a major league pitcher!
by sharksrog on Jan 19, 2009 6:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
CHONE thinks he’ll be our second best reliever, but he only has a minor league contract.
I'm spent, just can't rosterbate anymore.
by oldjacket on Jan 19, 2009 6:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Rx I don’t know what you have done to your adopted son but please don’t stop now.
I had completely missed that signing.
Here comes Captain Obvious wearing his Atomic Wedgie!
by daveinexile on Jan 24, 2009 9:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
With Regards To Projections
Are You Looking For Our Collective Personal Views Independent Of The Various Projection Systems?
by giantsrainman on Jan 18, 2009 2:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
If So, Should We Go Through This Player By Player Or At Least Positon By Position?
by giantsrainman on Jan 18, 2009 2:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
that though you aren’t obligated to give opinions where you don’t have them.
I'm spent, just can't rosterbate anymore.
by oldjacket on Jan 18, 2009 3:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Your personal views, though it’s fine if a projection system shapes your personal views.
I'm spent, just can't rosterbate anymore.
by oldjacket on Jan 18, 2009 3:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I Have A Thought That Might Help You
To get the McCoven’s view of the likely performance of each player run a poll for each player something like this:
Player X is most likely to perform in 2009
A) Better then any of these three projection systems
B) As projected by Bill James
C) As projected by Marcel
D) As projected by Chone
E) Worse then any of these three projection systems
For hitters provide the projected OBP, SLG, and wOBA from each projection system and for pitchers provide the projected ERA and FIP from each projection system. This should be enough info for the voters to choose.
Then I suggest you treat an A) vote as projecting performance of 50% again as much additional performance as the difference between the highest performance projected and the average performance projected by these three systems. Likewise I suggest you treat an E) vote as projecting a performance of 50% again less performance as the difference between the lowest performance projected and the average performance projected by these three systems
If you do this then you just need to average the votes and you have the projections of the McCoven.
You can then do the same thing for playing time and then scale the results to an actual likely full season for the team as a whole.
by giantsrainman on Jan 18, 2009 4:24 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Oh, that's what you meant.
Grant already does a player by player community projection thing. Was hoping we could do this in one fanpost and be done.
I'm spent, just can't rosterbate anymore.
by oldjacket on Jan 18, 2009 7:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So Then You Are Just Going To Wing It With Regards To What Adjustments To Make
Very much sounds like you will accept the adjustments you like and reject the ones you do not like. Have fun being to sole arbitrator of this so called community projection. I for one am not going to bother to participate.
by giantsrainman on Jan 18, 2009 7:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not at all. Give me some numbers and I’ll take them. I’ll weight them equally with my own. I’m just going to trust everyone to try to be reasonable.
The playing time estimates have to fit within certain parameters, so I am going to have to do some arbiting on those. But by and large, this is your chance to have a projection system be based on your personal input.
I'm spent, just can't rosterbate anymore.
by oldjacket on Jan 18, 2009 7:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok - My Mistake - You Have My Appology
I will take a stab at this perhaps tomorrow but more likely later this week if that is ok.
by giantsrainman on Jan 18, 2009 8:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
take your time. I’m asking for volunteers here, so I obviously can’t be picky.
I'm spent, just can't rosterbate anymore.
by oldjacket on Jan 18, 2009 8:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not if Grant has anything to do about it! ©2009
The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."
by WalrusMan on Jan 18, 2009 8:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Looking just at playing time …
Bengie’s had 517 and 569 pa’s per year as a Giant. I’d put him in there somewhere. If Pablo is indeed the starting third baseman, he’s going to spend very little time at catcher.
First base is tough. I don’t believe Bochy will keep a platoon going for long. I think Ishikawa’s going to get 600 pa’s (by winning the job outright) or 150 (by getting off to a slow start and being dumped to Fresno early in the year). Your numbers seem pretty good as a compromise, though I think Pablo will spend more time there.
You really think they’ll give Velez half the starts at second base? What a nightmare. I’d just give Frandsen 600 pa’s here, since if those projections are even close to accurate he’s obviously the best candidate.
SS is fine. Maybe give Renteria a little more time.
3B … who knows. If Frandsen is starting at second he can’t play that much at third, but someone has to. Rohlinger?
Unless he gets hurt, Rowand will play more. I’d take 100 pa’s away from Schierholtz and Winn and give them to Rowand. Winn hasn’t gone above 667 as a Giant.
GRM is right that you need another 250 or so pa’s from somewhere. I’d divvy these up among Velez, Burriss, and Phelps.
190 innings is low for Cain. He’s been over 200 for two straight years.
Lolowry.
by Evan on Jan 18, 2009 4:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I based those at-bats around the idea that Sandoval will be moving around a lot. But truth be told it may be more realistic to just project him as the starting third baseman who only gets a few reps at catcher.
Who gets the majority of those leftover ABs depends on who you think Bochy’s favorite pinch hitter would be. As the roster stands, I would be inclined to think it’s going to be Roberts, Schierholtz, Velez and Phelps.
I’ve heard it said that Rowand was going to take a few more days off this year, and that’s why I was a little conservative with his ABs.
I think it’s entirely reasonable to remove Lowry and replace his innings with a replacement level “Other SP” .
I'm spent, just can't rosterbate anymore.
by oldjacket on Jan 18, 2009 7:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just A Thought - The Projection Systems See Misch As Above Replacement - You Might Use His Numbers Instead Of Lowry's
by giantsrainman on Jan 18, 2009 8:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Noted. Joey Martinez might be another candidate, but I don’t have any projections for him.
I'm spent, just can't rosterbate anymore.
by oldjacket on Jan 18, 2009 8:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What's the deadline?
I’ve just got all the data into my projection systems and over the next week will finish up the projections.
The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."
by WalrusMan on Jan 18, 2009 8:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
No deadline really. I’ll probably change the spreadsheet about once a week until the season begins.
I'm spent, just can't rosterbate anymore.
by oldjacket on Jan 18, 2009 8:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This looks fine to me really.
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
Your 2009 Opening Day starter at second base*: Eugenio Velez
*For the Fresno Grizzlies
by baetown415 on Jan 18, 2009 10:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
So
So the Giants need to add Manny to be somewhat competitive, and if they really want to be so, they need to make TWO big moves.
by sharksrog on Jan 19, 2009 6:17 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Rainman Projections For The 2009 Giants
PositionPlayers———PlateAppearances———wOBA———wRC———RS/150
RandyWinn—————————600——————-.340———86.5————-(7)
EdgarRenteria————————600——————.336———74.4————(-6)
AaronRowand————————600——————.341———77.0————-(0)
FredLewis—————————-550——————-.343———71.6————-(1)
PabloSandoval———————-550——————-.355———77.3————(-3)
BengieMolina————————550——————-.321———61.0————(-1)
TravisIshikawa———————-500——————-.339———63.3————-(0)
KevinFrandsen———————-500——————-,331———59.8————-(4)
EugenioVelez————————350——————-.321———38.7————(-12)
NateSchierholtz———————-300————-——.346———39.8—-———(4)
DaveRoberts————————-200——————-.321———-22.2—-———(4)
SteveHolm—————————-250——————-.321———-27.7————(-8)
Others——————————-—350——————-.321———38.7————-(0)
Pitchers——————-————-350———————NC———00.0-————(0)
Total————————————6250——————-NC———-738————(-10)
RunsScored——————————————————————738
Pitchers——————————-Starts—————Innings———FIP———FIPruns
TimLincecum—————————33——————-225———-3.00-——-—-75.0
RandyJohnson————————-26——————-162———-4.00————72.0
MattCain————-———————33——————-216———-3.50————84.0
BarryZito———————-————32——————-198———-4.50————99.0
JonathanSanchez————-———26——————-162———-4.00————72.0
OtherStarters—————————-12———————63———-5.00————35.0
BrianWilson——————————————————63———-4.00————28.0
JeromyAffeldt—————————————————-63———-4.00————28.0
BobHowry———————————————————63———-4.00————28.0
SergioRomo———————————-——————-63———-4.00————28.0
OtherReleivers————————————————180———-4.50————90.0
Total————————————-162——-————1458———3.94————639
UnearnedRunsAdjustment————-——-———————————————(60)
DefenseAdjustment————————-——-——————————————-(10)
RunsAllowed———————————-——-——————————————-709
Most of these projections fall within the range of the projections found at Fangraphs from the Bill James, Chone, and Marcel projection systems. There are however seven exceptions which I will discuss now.
1) I projected Dave Roberts to do slightly better then the best of the Fangraphs projection systems. Chone projected a .319 wOBA for him while Marcel and Bill James were at .311 and .309 respectively. I choose to go with Dave’s 2007 wOBA of .321 because I believe this best reflects what we can expect from a healthy Roberts in 2009 as a backup.
2) I projected Steve Holm to do worse then any of the Fangraphs projection systems. Chone did not project Steve Holm. Bill James and Marcel projected wOBAs of .337, and .331 respectively. I just can not believe that he is a better hitter then Bengie Molina so I brought down his wOBA to match Bengie’s at .321.
3) I projected Others on offense to do slightly worse then what would be any of the averages of the different projections for Josh Phelps and Emmanual Burriss.
4) I projected Matt Cain to do better then any of the Fangraphs projection systems. Bill James, Chone, and Marcel projected FIPs of 3.87, 3.91, and 3.79 respectively. This is a gut feel pick as I just believe he will breakout and produce at a 3.50 FIP in 2009.
5) I projected Barry Zito to do slightly better then the best of the Fangraphs projection systems. Bill James projected a 4.56 FIP for him while Chone and Marcel were at 4.88 and 4.65 respectively. I choose to go with 4.50 because I honestly believe this is Barry’s true performance level when he doesn’t let his contract and it’s expectations get into his head. I think Zito is now there and he will settle down and produce at this level in 2009.
6) I projected OtherStarters to do worse then what would be any of the averages of the different projections for Pat Misch and Noah Lowry.
7) I projected OtherRelievers to do worse then what would be any of the averages of the different projections for Alex Hinshaw, Billy Sadler, Keiichi Yabu, Osiris Matos, and Merkin Valdez.
Bottom line, I see the 2009 Giants scoring about 738 runs while allowing aroung 709 runs for a plus 29 differential and thus around 84 wins.
by giantsrainman on Jan 19, 2009 7:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
By The Way
I assumed a run environment in the NL of an average of 748 runs per team with 6250 PAs per team. This works out to a lgR/PA of .11968. I also assumed a lgwOBA of .331 and a wOBAScale of 1.15.
by giantsrainman on Jan 19, 2009 7:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How?
How is it that the Giants are going to go from being within three runs scored of being the lowest-scoring team in the majors to one which is only 10 runs below average?
by sharksrog on Jan 19, 2009 11:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fabulous job!
You did a fabulous job, but I still can’t see the Giants scoring 98 more runs than last season.
I’m not figuring on much of a drop off at catcher, and I would expect improvement if Pablo Sandoval backs Bengie up. But the Giants say they are going to play Pablo at first or third every day, so let’s call the position even with last season. Some would predict a decline from Bengie, but to be honest, I don’t see all that much of a drop off as likely.
I would expect a little improvement at first base — say 15 runs?
Second base will likely be a losing proposition. Ray Durham was actually rather good offensively last season, and the guys who filled in for him after he left didn’t do too bad a job, either. I’m figuring a loss of something like 15 runs here.
Shortstop should make a nice gain, since I expect a bounce-back season from Edgar Renteria, and he will be competing with only Brimar Boquel. Shall we figure on a pickup of 25 runs here?
Third base should be an improvement, as well, presuming Pablo will man the fort. Plus 15 runs — and even more if Pablo himself hadn’t played there a bit last season.
I’m expecting Fred Lewis to back off a bit in left field. Nothing too drastic, but perhaps a loss of five runs?
I’m figuring Aaron Rowand for little change. I don’t think he is likely to much of a bounce, and he might continue his decline from last season.
I’m guessing Randy Winn will be down about 10 runs next season. He had a pretty darn good year (for him) last season.
That would be a total gain of about 25 runs scored, which would place the Giants at 665. That’s well short of 738. Unless we disagree by nearly 10 runs per position, we won’t get up to 738.
I’m hoping to be wrong here. Please show me where you disagree and your reasons for doing so. What I did is certainly not an exact science.
by sharksrog on Jan 20, 2009 12:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually As I Show Below It Is Down To Just 89 More Runs Then Last Season
I don’t have time tonight to break this down further for you but I will make this effort tomorrow. It is now 12:35am Tuesday Morning and I am just way too tired to think this hard right now.
by giantsrainman on Jan 20, 2009 12:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Here Is My Effort To Explain How This Projected 2009 Team Scores 79 More Runs Then The 2008 Giants
First off, I made a 10 run math error in calculating the projected wRC from Randy Winn. 600 PAs at a .340 wOBA projects to produce 76.5 wRC not 86.5. Therefore we are now looking at a projection that the 2009 Giants will score 719 runs not 729. This is 79 more then the 640 they scored in 2008. The Giants 2009 Team wOBA is now projected to be .326. Finally, with now just a 10 run projected advantage in Runs Scored (719) vs Runs Allowed (709) the 2009 Giants win total is now projected to be 82.
Let’s start with how the 2008 team scored just 640 runs. Last year the Giants produced a team wOBA of .309 which resulted in a team wRC of 642. As you can see in 2008 wRC was very accurate in predicting the the runs the Giants actually scored. I am projecting the 2009 Giants to have a .326 wOBA that produces 719 wRC.
Let’s now break this down and go position by position comparing 2008’s actual results with the results I have projected for 2009.
In 2008 the Giants Catchers had 716 PAs with a .332 wOBA that produced 87 wRC. In 2009 I am projecting 700 PAs with a .321 wOBA that is projected to produce 78 wRC. No help here. The 2009 Giants have gone backwards 9 runs.
In 2008 the Giants Pitchers had 334 PAs with a .163 wOBA that produced -6 wRC. In 2009 I am projecting 350 PAs with the same .163 wOBA that is projected to produce -9 wRC. No help here either. The 2009 Giants have gone backwards again by an additional 3 runs.
In 2008 the Giants Outfield had 2257 PAs with a .342 wOBA that produced 288 wRC. In 2009 I am projecting 2250 PAs with a .340 wOBA that is projected to produce 287 wRC. Again, no help here. The 2009 Giants have gone backwands another run.
In 2008 the Giants Secondbasemen had 744 PAs with a .317 wOBA that produced 82 wRC. In 2009 I am projecting 750 PAs with a .328 wOBA that is projected to produce 87 wRC. I guess you forgot how bad Velez and Burriss hit at 2B last year. Yes, Ray Durham produced at a .367 wOBA but he just did not play enough. The 2009 Giants finally get some help and they pick up 5 runs here.
In 2008 the Giants Firstbasemen had 749 PAs with a .311 wOBA that produced 79 wRC. In 2009 I am projecting 750 PAs with a .333 wOBA that is projected to produce 91 wRC. Again the 2009 Giants get some help. 500 PAs from Travis Ishikawa at a .339 wOBA (plus 250 from Others at a .321 wOBA) is projected to give the 2009 Giants a gain of 12 runs at Firstbase.
In 2008 the Giants Thirdbasemen had 725 PAs with a .306 wOBA that produced 73 wRC. In 2009 I am projecting 750 PAs with a .347 wOBA that is projected to produce 100 wRC. Here is one of the large pickups the 2009 Giants need. What a difference 550 PAs from Pablo Sadoval at a .355 wOBA (plus 200 from Others at a .321 wOBA) make. The 2009 Giants pick up 23 runs at Thirdbase!
In 2008 the Giants Shortstops had 620 PAs with an unbelievably bad .257 wOBA that produced just 39 wRC. In 2009 I am projecting 700 PAs with a .335 wOBA that is projected to produce 86 wRC. Here is the biggest pickup of all. What a difference 600 PAs from Edgar Renteria at a .336 wOBA (and 100 from Others at a .321 wOBA) make over Omar Vizquel, Emmanual Burriss, Brian Bocock and Ivan Ochoa. The 2009 Giants pick up 47 runs at SS!
There, I have done it. I hope this makes sense to you now.
by giantsrainman on Jan 20, 2009 5:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
4 Run Error In How Many Runs The 2009 Giants Pick Up At Thirdbase
100 – 73 is a 27 run pick up not a 23 run pickup.
by giantsrainman on Jan 20, 2009 7:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you have a slight overpredict here
In that you are assuming a rather extremely good health situation for the giants. Now, you probably shouldn’t predict injuries, but I would just dock all the starters 5% of their PAs, and assign it to “other”. Also, Sandoval is not going to have a .355wOBA.
On other side of the ledger… not enough PAs for Phelps!
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
by zenbitz on Jan 22, 2009 9:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A good point
I think you make a good point that Pablo Sandoval is unlikely to have a .355 wOBA.
I think Rainman does make a good argument for a significant pickup in runs at shortstop, although I don’t think it will truly be 47 runs.
And I will be surprised if the Giants truly pick up runs at second base rather than losing some.
Although I think the Giants will go into 2009 with one or two changes to their present lineup, I would be quite surprised if they scored over 700 runs with the players they presently have. To be honest, I would be surprised if they scored as MANY as 700 runs.
Rainman did a nice job here of presenting his point, but obviously if projections are off, the results won’t be what they are expected to be.
by sharksrog on Jan 29, 2009 11:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We Just Disagree On Pablo - "He Can Hit"
Projecting outerwise in my judgement is a mistake.
by giantsrainman on Jan 29, 2009 1:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You mean “guessing otherwise using my arbitrary rules” is a mistake.
^ _ ^
by xanthan on Jan 29, 2009 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So that is what you meant
Nice call, xanthan.
GROUGTHINK ALERT
by groug on Jan 29, 2009 2:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
2 Of The Five Publicly Available Projection Systems Agree With Me
Bill James and Marcel project Pablo Sandoval to have wOBAs of .366 and .355 respectively. Yes, and I have acknowledged this before, the other 3 of these five agree with xanthan. Crone, Oliver, and ZIPS project Pabl Sandoval to have wOBAs of .324, .332, and .331 respectively. xanthan considers my judgement that the first two are more likely then the last three as arbitrary. He has this opinion because he flat out dismisses Bill James as be too high on almost everybody and in Pablo’s case dismisses Marcel because it does not include minor league data. But, what xanthan fails to see is that the three he prefers sometimes have a flaw in how they look at minor league data. Their flaw is that they are not very good a recogizing breakout that occurs without this breakout being verified by more then one year of data. Here is where I use my judgement (improperly labeled by xanthan as “arbitrary” to see that Sandoval did in fact breakout. I don’t need to see another year of data before I can come to this conclusion.
by giantsrainman on Jan 29, 2009 3:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it’s pretty amazing that you seem to know why you’re wrong but you don’t care. Awesome. Don’t change, GRM.
by xanthan on Jan 29, 2009 6:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, since you never answered me in the other thread, did you ever check out Pablo’s reliability score in Marcel?
Just wonderin’
by xanthan on Jan 29, 2009 6:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I Already Knew His Marcel Realiabity Score
Therefore I didn’t need ot check it out. By the way, reliability score works both ways and does not at all mean he is more likely to be worse. In fact it just means he is more likely to be different and equally likely to be better as he is to be worse.
Once again, I must empasize that these systems are bad at recognizing breakout. It just takes them too long to get enough data to do so and thus they can only do so after the fact. One has to use judgment to recognize breakout when it actually occurs.
by giantsrainman on Jan 29, 2009 6:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
James/Breakout
The issue isn’t that the Bill James-branded system is better at picking breakouts, it’s that it sees breakouts for everyone – it’s impossible to reconcile the hitting and pitching projections.
As for Marcel, Marcel’s not sniffing out a breakout season. Marcel does not look at minor league data. Sandoval’s projection is just his 2008 major league performance with a generic aging factor and regression towards the mean.
--
Dan Szymborski
dan@baseballprimer.com
by D.Szymborski on Jan 29, 2009 10:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I Am Not Saying They Are Better At Sniffing A Breakout
I am saying human judgment is better at sniffing a Breakout. It is this judgement I relied upon. Yes, I looked at and took into account all the different projections and their various strengths and weaknesses but I did not differ my final judgement to any of them but rather just used all of them along with Pablo’s actual past performance to make this judgement for myself.
by giantsrainman on Jan 29, 2009 11:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Breakouts
Tango did an experiment a few years ago – humans didn’t pick out breakouts better than the computers did.
People tend to predict far too many breakouts at far too large a magnitude.
--
Dan Szymborski
dan@baseballprimer.com
by D.Szymborski on Jan 30, 2009 4:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As A Group I Am Sure You Are Right
But I am sure professional baseball talent evaluators can pretty consitentently beat computers at this. Tell you what, I a will take the over on ZIPS wOBA and you can have the under for Pablo Sandoval and we will see how is right.
by giantsrainman on Jan 30, 2009 1:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I Calculated ZIPS To Project A .331 wOBA
(((21 BBs x .72 = 15.12) + (1 HBP x .75 = .75) + (95 1Bs x .9 = 85.5) + (33 2Bs x 1.24 = 40.92) + (2 3Bs x 1.56 = 3.12) + (17 HRs x 1.95 = 33.15)) = 178.56) / (517 ABs + 21 BBs + 1 HPB = 539.
I did not include RBOE, SF, SH because I could not find where they were projected. I also ignored CS. Further, I had to calculate HBP by seeing how many it took to get to the OBP ZIPS projected.
by giantsrainman on Jan 30, 2009 1:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just To Clarify
I am talking about recognizing a breakout has happened I am not talking about forecasting a breakout to happen. Professional baseball people can recognize this well before the sample sizes your (or anyone elses) computer programs or formulas can.
by giantsrainman on Jan 30, 2009 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Here’s a shock. You probably aren’t very good at sniffing a breakout, either (especially for a hitter with just 150 total PA’s in his MLB career). If you’re going to just go with your gut, why use these projection systems at all? Why not just pull some numbers out of the air?
by xanthan on Jan 30, 2009 4:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For You I Will Take The Over On My wOBA Projection
for Pablo Sandoval of .355.
by giantsrainman on Jan 30, 2009 1:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Careful
One might want to view “breakouts” with caution. Take the case of John Bowker.
After putting up OPS of .737 in his first year at San Jose and only .761 when he repeated there, John posted an impressive .886 OPS in AA Connecticut, reputed to be one of the toughest places to hit in the minors.
He followed that up by jumping to the majors after only a few at bats last season, raising his OPS from .620 in April to .718 in May to a robust .958 in June. Sounds a bit like a breakout of not just one year, but a year and a half, doesn’t it?
Well, John’s OPS fell to just .526 in July and .498 in August before he was sent back to the minors. After becoming the Giants’ starting first baseman, John is no longer considered much more than a possible fifth outfielder or returnee to Fresno.
I’m not suggesting the same for Pablo. Not at all. I’m merely saying that all “breakouts” aren’t truly long-term breakouts.
by sharksrog on Jan 31, 2009 12:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
thanks
I'm spent, just can't rosterbate anymore.
by oldjacket on Jan 19, 2009 9:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Three Corrections
1) Move 100 projected PAs from Steve Holm To Others thus moving 11 projected wRCs from Steve Holm To Others since they have the same projected .321 wOBA. 800 PAs is about 100 too many to project for the Catchers even including pinch hitting.
2) In 2008 Giants Pitchers hit for a combined wOBA of .163. If we project them to again hit for a wOBA of .163 in 2009 this will project them to contribute -9 wRC in 350 PAs in 2009. This correction will reduce the projected Team wRC and thus projected Giants Run Scored from 738 to 729.
3) With this the Projected Giants Team wOBA can now be calculated. wOBA = ((wRC/PA – lgR/PA) x wOBAScale) + lgwOBA. With wRC/PA = 729/6250 = .11664, lgR/PA = .11968, wOBAScale = 1.15, and lgwOBA = .331 the Giants Team wOBA is projected to be .328.
These adjustments reduce the projected run differential for the Giants from 29 to 20 which should also reduce the protected wins from 84 to 83.
by giantsrainman on Jan 19, 2009 11:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Rainman Projections Updated With All Corrections
PositionPlayers———PlateAppearances———wOBA———wRC———RS/150
RandyWinn—————————600——————-.340———76.5————-(7)
EdgarRenteria————————600——————.336———74.4————(-6)
AaronRowand————————600——————.341———77.0————-(0)
FredLewis—————————-550——————-.343———71.6————-(1)
PabloSandoval———————-550——————-.355———77.3————(-3)
BengieMolina————————550——————-.321———61.0————(-1)
TravisIshikawa———————-500——————-.339———63.3————-(0)
KevinFrandsen———————-500——————-,331———59.8————-(4)
EugenioVelez————————350——————-.321———38.7————(-12)
NateSchierholtz———————-300————-——.346———39.8—-———(4)
DaveRoberts————————-200——————-.321———-22.2—-———(4)
SteveHolm—————————-150——————-.321———-16.7————(-8)
OtherPositionPlayers-———-—450——————-.321——-—49.7————-(0)
Pitchers——————-————-350—————-—.163——-—(-9)—————(0)
Total————————————6250——————.326———-719————(-10)
RunsScored——————————————————————719
Pitchers——————————-Starts—————Innings———FIP———FIPruns
TimLincecum—————————33——————-225———-3.00-——-—-75.0
RandyJohnson————————-26——————-162———-4.00————72.0
MattCain————-———————33——————-216———-3.50————84.0
BarryZito———————-————32——————-198———-4.50————99.0
JonathanSanchez————-———26——————-162———-4.00————72.0
OtherStarters—————————-12———————63———-5.00————35.0
BrianWilson——————————————————63———-4.00————28.0
JeromyAffeldt—————————————————-63———-4.00————28.0
BobHowry———————————————————63———-4.00————28.0
SergioRomo———————————-——————-63———-4.00————28.0
OtherReleivers————————————————180———-4.50————90.0
Total————————————-162——-————1458———3.94————639
UnearnedRunsAdjustment————-——-———————————————(60)
DefenseAdjustment————————-——-——————————————-(10)
RunsAllowed———————————-——-——————————————-709
Bottom line the Rainman Projections expect the 2009 Giants to score 719 runs while allowing 709 for a run differential of +10 runs. This +10 runs should project to 82 Wins for the 2009 Giants.
by giantsrainman on Jan 20, 2009 7:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not a major issue, but it’s interesting to me that in your “set roster” (the players who aren’t "other") you haven’t included anybody who is capable of playing backup SS, really not even anyone capable of faking it. I only notice this because it strikes me as a continuation of one of the fatal flaws of this team (IMHO), the poor team defense (and particularly the poor infield defense) that is likely to have a negative impact on the pitching projections across the staff.
Get the hell out the way Bengie, Pablito's hit the show!
by Roger on Jan 21, 2009 9:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As the roster currently is, I don’t see how Burris doesn’t end up in the majors.
I'm spent, just can't rosterbate anymore.
by oldjacket on Jan 21, 2009 9:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Kevin Frandsen Played SS In AFL, Did Fine On Defense, In Fact Did Better Then Burriss On Defense
I have no problem with Kevin playing SS when Renteria needs a rest and obviously Burriss will be called up if Renteria goes on the DL.
P.S. If you had read my explanation of the projections for “Others” ie OtherPositionPlayers you would have noticed that I started with the worst of the projections for the average of Phelps and Burriss and then went lower still, In essense Burriss is assumed to get 225 of the “OtherPositionPlayer” PAs while Josh Phelps is assumed to get the other 225.
by giantsrainman on Jan 21, 2009 12:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You shouldn’t assume people haven’t read your explanations just because they take some issue with them. I read your explanation, I’m just thinking through the logistics of roster construction and what it means to get certain players on and/or off the roster.
I don’t personally believe Frandsen is an adequate major league SS, in fact I don’t know that I find him any better than Velez. But more to the point we know that management was so thoroughly horrified about his SS play last spring that they took the unusual position of publicly announcing that he would no longer be part of the SS equation. In addition to which, if he wins the starting 2B job then you’re really looking at Velez as the backup MI. So I’m guessing that either Burriss takes Velez’ place on the roster, or one of the OFs goes and both Burriss and Velez stay.
Also, unless you’re dealing with DL situations (which in essence create their own replacement demand) it looks fairly difficult to me to get Phelps onto this team without waiving Ishikawa (who’s out of options) or getting rid of an OF (which would either mean waiving Nate or DFAing Roberts or possibly trading someone) or sending down Holm and going with just the two catchers.
Get the hell out the way Bengie, Pablito's hit the show!
by Roger on Jan 21, 2009 1:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I Really Didn't Want To Try And Be This Detailed But It Seems I Need To
This is not intended to be the “only path” but I think it is “one path” that could be reasonablely followed with regards to who plays where when. Above I indicated that I see 750 PAs each from the players that play 1B, 2B, 3B, and all three outfield spots. In addition I indicated that I see 700 PAs each from the players that play C and SS with 350 PAs from the pitchers. Obviously some of these position player PAs ( I would guess 300) are actually pinch hitting for the pitchers. So if we assume that these 300 pinch hitting for the pitcher PAs come at 50 each from the 6 positions I projected to have 750 PAs this leaves us with the 700 PAs each from all 8 non pitching positions and 650 PAs from either the pitchers or pinch hitters for the pitchers. With this in mind here is one possible breakdown of these PAs by position:
Catcher – 550 PAs from Bengie Molina and 150 PAs from Steve Holm.
Firstbase – 500 PAs from Travis Ishikawa, 150 PAs from Josh Phelps, and 50 PAs from Pablo Sandoval.
Secondbase – 275 PAs from Eugenio Velez, 250 PAs by Kevin Frandsen, and 175 PAs from Emmanual Burriss.
Thirdbase – 500 PAs from Pablo Sandoval and 200 PAs from Kevin Frandsen.
Shortstop – 600 PAs from Edgar Renteria, 50 PAs from Kevin Frandsen, and 50 PAs from Emmanual Burriss.
Leftfield – 550 PAs from Fred Lewis and 150 PAs from Dave Roberts.
Centerfield – 600 PAs from Aaron Rowand, 100 PAs from Randy Winn.
Rightfield – 500 PAs from Randy Winn and 200 PAs from Nate Schierholtz.
Pinchhitter – 100 PAs from Nate Schierholtz, 75 PAs from Eugenio Velez, 75 PAs from Josh Phelps, and 50 PAs from Dave Roberts.
by giantsrainman on Jan 21, 2009 4:01 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Interesting you have Frandsen as THE utility infielder role.
I really see 2nd has his job to lose as opposed to being the floater. He is the guy with more MLB experience and Botchy loves that MLB experience. I think Frandsen will probably see more time at third then either of us, or the management, would like. What I’ve seen of Fransden’s glove at third was reasonable. (Unlike my view of his defense of short stop but I think we will just agree to disagree there and not derail things.) Until Guzman earns his way on top the 25 man (or someone else is acquired) Frandsen is the 3rd base insurance policy and I expect that policy will be well used.
Very nice work Rainman. Thanks for sharing it.
Here comes Captain Obvious wearing his Atomic Wedgie!
by daveinexile on Jan 24, 2009 9:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I Do However Have Franden With 500 Total PAs.
250 at 2B, 200 at 3B, and 50 at SS. While I only have 350 PAs for Velez (275 at 2B and 75 at Pinchhitter) and 225 PAs for Burriss (175 at 2B and 50 at SS).
One thing else I might point out is that there are 14 postion players above getting these 5900 total position player PAs. Obviously one of them at any given time is either on the DL or in Fresno. When nobody is on the DL I expect Burriss and Phelps to pingpong between AAA and MLB depending on the Giants particular needs and desires at that time.
by giantsrainman on Jan 24, 2009 2:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Velez, Frandsen and Burriss
I can’t see how the combination of Velez, Frandsen and Burriss can be expected to produce more runs than the combination of Durham, Velez, Burriss, Castillo and Ochoa last season when Ray is the best hitter in the bunch.
I think the Giants’ best shot at producing runs at second base is to play Kevin Frandsen a lot while spot-starting Eugenio Velez against some righties. And then get Kevin back in the game for defense as soon as is feasible.
by sharksrog on Jan 29, 2009 12:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If You Prefer You Can Replace "OtherPositionPlayers" With Emmanul Burriss And Josh Phelps
EmmanualBurriss with 225 PAs at a .300 wOBA producing 20.7 wRC and Josh Phelps with 225 PAs at a .342 wOBA producing 29.0 wRC. The net result is the same. These two combined produce 49.7 wRC in 450 PAs with an average wOBA of .321 which is what I show above for “OtherPositionPlayers”..
Emmanual Burriss is projected by Bill James, Chone, and Marcel to have wOBAs of .303, .308, and .334 respectively. My projected .300 wOBA is lower then any of these. Josh Phelps is not projected by Bill James but is projected by Chone and Marcel to have wOBAs of .355 and .346 respectively. My projected .342 wOBA is lower then any of these.
by giantsrainman on Jan 21, 2009 1:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not taking issue with your projections, just saying that when it comes to playing time, until we get to ST, I think we have to assume that EB breaks with the big club. Either as part of “Other” as you have him, or broken out, like I do.
I'm spent, just can't rosterbate anymore.
by oldjacket on Jan 21, 2009 1:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The sad thing
is that this projection is probably a little optimistic, but it is 10 wins more than last year! And it’s still lame.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
by zenbitz on Jan 22, 2009 9:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Can you calculate where the 330 billion went?
that’d be , you know , real – time hepful rightchere.
Who has the fun?
Is it always the man with the gun?
- The Stranglers
by victor frankenstein on Jan 23, 2009 4:46 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Which missing $330 billion?
The first team, or the $330 billion that went missing on the rescue of the rescue?
by Sabertooth on Jan 30, 2009 8:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
